We granted leave to appeal in these two cases to determine whether the motor-vehicle exception to governmental immunity, MCL 691.1405, authorizes a claim for loss of consortium against a governmental agency. The motor-vehicle exception permits recovery of damages only for “bodily injury” and “property damage.” A loss of consortium is not a physical injury to the body. Moreover, a claim for loss of consortium is an independent, albeit derivative, cause of action. Therefore, the motor-vehicle exception does not waive immunity from such a claim.
In Kik, we also must determine whether the wrongful-death act, MCL 600.2922, permits a loss-of-consortium claim against a governmental agency. The availability of a wrongful-death action hinges on whether the injured party would have been entitled to *80maintain an action and recover damages had a death not ensued. Because the motor-vehicle exception would not have permitted plaintiffs to pursue a loss-of-consortium claim if their daughter’s death had not ensued, plaintiffs are also barred from pursuing such a claim in their wrongful-death action.
Finally, in Kik, we must also resolve whether a governmental employee is immune from liability for loss-of-consortium damages. We hold that a governmental employee is not immune if the plaintiff can satisfy all the requirements set forth in the gross-negligence exception to the governmental immunity of employees.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals in Wesche, affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the Court of Appeals in Kik, and remand both cases for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. WESCHE
Plaintiff Daniel Wesche was seated in his automobile at a red light when defendant Mecosta County Road Commission’s vehicle, a Gradall hydraulic excavator,1 rear-ended him. Plaintiffs alleged that the accident injured Daniel’s cervical spine. Plaintiff Beverly Wesche, Daniel’s wife, was not present at the accident scene and suffered no bodily injury. She claimed a loss of consortium as a result of Daniel’s injury.2
*81The trial court granted summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) for defendant regarding Beverly’s loss-of-consortium claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the motor-vehicle exception does not waive governmental immunity from loss-of-consortium claims.3 We granted plaintiffs’ application for leave to appeal and directed that this case be argued and submitted with Kik.4
B .KIK
Plaintiff Rebecca Kik, who was pregnant, was being transported in an ambulance owned by defendant Kinross Charter Township and operated by defendant John-Christopher Sbraccia, a township employee. Sbraccia lost control of the ambulance, which overturned in a ditch. Rebecca suffered injuries and went into premature labor, delivering the baby, Sharon Kik, who allegedly died the same day.5
Rebecca and her husband, plaintiff Robert Kik, filed this action individually and as personal corepresentatives of Sharon’s estate. Their complaint alleged: (1) Rebecca’s personal-injury claim, (2) Robert’s claim for loss of consortium arising from Rebecca’s injuries, and *82(3) a wrongful-death claim on behalf of Sharon’s estate, including Robert and Rebecca’s claims for loss of society and companionship.
Defendants moved for partial summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), arguing that they are immune from all claims other than for bodily injury and property damage. Kinross Charter Township and Kinross Charter Township EMS argued that (1) the motor-vehicle exception does not waive immunity from loss-of-consortium claims and (2) the limitations on the underlying motor-vehicle exception claim apply to the wrongful-death action. Sbraccia argued that he was immune because the governmental agency that employed him was immune. The trial court rejected defendants’ arguments and denied the motion. The original Court of Appeals panel affirmed in part and reversed in part.6 On Robert’s loss-of-consortium claim based on Rebecca’s injuries, the panel stated that it was bound by the decision in Wesche barring such a claim, but that it would have decided the issue differently if Wesche had not been controlling.7 On the wrongful-death claim, the panel held that the wrongful-death act controlled the damages that could be recovered and that the claims for loss of society and companionship arising from the infant’s death could proceed despite the language of the motor-vehicle exception. Finally, the panel held that MCL 691.1407(2)(c) permitted plaintiffs to pursue loss-of-consortium claims against Sbraccia if they could establish gross negligence.
A special panel of the Court of Appeals convened pursuant to MCR 7.215(J) to resolve the conflict be*83tween Wesche and the decision of the original panel in Kik 8 The special panel’s majority overruled Wesche and held that loss-of-consortium claims are permitted under the motor-vehicle exception. Three members of the special panel opined in dissent that the Wesche panel had correctly decided the issue.
Defendants applied for leave to appeal in this Court. We granted the application and directed that the case be argued and submitted with Wesche.9
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
“This Court reviews de novo motions for summary disposition. Questions of statutory interpretation are questions of law that are also reviewed de novo by this Court.” Renny v Dep’t of Transportation, 478 Mich 490, 495; 734 NW2d 518 (2007). Our goal in interpreting a statute is to give effect to the Legislature’s intent as reflected in the statutory language. Id. “When the language of a statute is unambiguous, the Legislature’s intent is clear and judicial construction is neither necessary nor permitted.” Griffith v State Farm Mut Automobile Ins Co, 472 Mich 521, 526; 697 NW2d 895 (2005).
III. ANALYSIS
A. THE MOTOR-VEHICLE EXCEPTION DOES NOT WAIVE IMMUNITY FOR LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
The governmental tort liability act (GTLA), MCL 691.1401 et seq., provides: “Except as otherwise provided in this act, a governmental agency is immune from tort liability if the governmental agency is en*84gaged in the exercise or discharge of a governmental function.” MCL 691.1407(1). This grant of immunity is subject to six statutory exceptions.10
These cases hinge on the proper interpretation of the motor-vehicle exception, MCL 691.1405, which provides:
Governmental agencies shall be liable for bodily injury and property damage resulting from the negligent operation by any officer, agent, or employee of the governmental agency, of a motor vehicle of which the governmental agency is owner, as defined in Act No. 300 of the Public Acts of 1949, as amended, being sections 257.1 to 257.923 of the Compiled Laws of 1948.
This language is clear: it imposes liability for “bodily injury” and “property damage” resulting from a governmental employee’s negligent operation of a government-owned motor vehicle. The waiver of immunity is limited to two categories of damage: bodily injury and property damage.
Although the GTLA does not define “bodily injury,” the term is not difficult to understand. When considering the meaning of a nonlegal word or phrase that is not defined in a statute, resort to a lay dictionary is appropriate. Horace v City of Pontiac, 456 Mich 744, 756; 575 NW2d 762 (1998). The word “bodily” means “of or pertaining to the body” or “corporeal or material, as contrasted with spiritual or mental.” Random House Webster’s College Dictionary (2000). The word “injury” refers to “harm or damage done or sustained, [espe*85dally] bodily harm.” Id. Thus, “bodily injury” simply means a physical or corporeal injury to the body. It is beyond dispute that a loss of consortium is not a physical injury to a body. “A claim for loss of consortium is simply one for loss of society and companionship.” Eide v Kelsey-Hayes Co, 431 Mich 26,29; 427 NW2d 488 (1988). Thus, because loss of consortium is a nonphysical injury, it does not fall within the categories of damage for which the motor-vehicle exception waives immunity.
Moreover, loss of consortium is not merely an item of damages. Rather, this Court has long recognized that a claim for loss of consortium is an independent cause of action. Id., at 29, citing Montgomery v Stephan, 359 Mich 33, 41; 101 NW2d 227 (1960), and Prosser & Keeton, Torts (5th ed), § 125, pp 931-934. Although a loss-of-consortium claim is derivative of the underlying bodily injury, it is nonetheless regarded as a separate cause of action and not merely an item of damages. Eide, supra at 37. The motor-vehicle exception does not waive immunity from this independent cause of action; the waiver of immunity is limited to claims for bodily injury and property damage.11
We reject the Kik II panel’s conclusion that the motor-vehicle exception creates a threshold for liability that, once met, permits the recovery of damages for loss of consortium. MCL 691.1405 plainly states that governmental agencies “shall be liable for bodily injury and property damage” resulting from the negligent operation of a motor vehicle. It does not state or suggest that *86governmental agencies are liable for any damages once a plaintiff makes a threshold showing of bodily injury or property damage.
Moreover, the Legislature knows how to create a statutory threshold when it wishes to do so. For example, Michigan’s no-fault act provides: “A person remains subject to tort liability for noneconomic loss caused by his or her ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle only if the injured person has suffered death, serious impairment of a body function, or permanent serious disfigurement.” MCL 500.3135(1). The no-fault act thus retains “tort liability for noneconomic loss” if one of the required categories of damage is established. By contrast, the motor-vehicle exception contains no such language. It merely provides that governmental agencies “shall be liable for bodily injury and property damage” and says nothing to suggest that a separate cause of action, such as one for loss of consortium, may be asserted once a threshold of “bodily injury” has been met.
The Kik I panel’s reliance on Endykiewicz v State Hwy Comm, 414 Mich 377; 324 NW2d 755 (1982), was misplaced. In Endykiewicz, this Court found the language of the highway exception, MCL 691.1402(1), to be ambiguous and thus read it broadly to permit recovery for loss of companionship and society in a wrongful-death action. The Endykiewicz Court stated that the highway exception is “an expansive provision defining the liability of a governmental agency.” Id. at 389 (emphasis added).
We reject the analysis in Endykiewicz because the statutory language at issue here is not ambiguous. As we have explained, the statutory text permits recovery of damages only for bodily injury and property damage, and loss of consortium does not fall within either of those categories.
*87For these reasons, we hold that a loss of consortium is not a “bodily injury” for which the motor-vehicle exception waives immunity. Because no statutory exception applies, the governmental agencies in these cases are entitled to governmental immunity on the plaintiffs’ loss-of-consortium claims.12
B. THE WRONGFUL-DEATH ACT DOES NOT EXPAND THE WAIVER OF IMMUNITY
The wrongful-death act does not waive a governmental agency’s immunity beyond the limits set forth in the underlying statutory exception. The three-judge panel in Kik I ruled that even if the motor-vehicle exception does not waive immunity, the wrongful-death act nonetheless allows a claim for loss of consortium. This conclusion contravenes both the language of the wrongful-death act and this Court’s caselaw.
At the applicable time, MCL 600.2922(1) provided:
Whenever the death of a person or injuries resulting in death shall be caused by wrongful act, neglect, or fault of another, and the act, neglect, or fault is such as would, if death had not ensued, have entitled the party injured to maintain an action and recover damages, the person who or the corporation that would have been liable, if death had not ensued, shall be liable to an action for damages, *88notwithstanding the death of the person injured, and although the death was caused under circumstances that constitute a felony. [Emphasis added.]
Another provision of the wrongful-death act stated:
In every action under this section, the court or jury may award damages as the court or jury shall consider fair and equitable, under all the circumstances including reasonable medical, hospital, funeral, and burial expenses for which the estate is liable; reasonable compensation for the pain and suffering, while conscious, undergone by the deceased person during the period intervening between the time of the injury and death; and damages for the loss of financial support and the loss of the society and companionship of the deceased. [MCL 600.2922(6) (emphasis added).]
The Kik I panel reasoned that even if the motor-vehicle exception does not waive immunity, the wrongful-death act expressly authorizes damages for loss of society and companionship. But that analysis fails to give effect to language in MCL 600.2922(1) making liability contingent on whether the party injured would have been entitled to maintain an action and recover damages if death had not ensued.
In Kik, the motor-vehicle exception would not have entitled plaintiffs to maintain an action and recover damages for loss of consortium if Sharon’s death had not ensued. As discussed, the motor-vehicle exception does not waive immunity from loss of consortium because “bodily injury” does not encompass such claims. Thus, because plaintiffs would not have been entitled to pursue a loss-of-consortium claim if Sharon’s death had not ensued, MCL 600.2922(1) does not authorize such a claim in this wrongful-death action.
Our textual analysis is supported by caselaw stating that the wrongful-death act is essentially a “filter” through which the underlying claim may proceed. In *89Hardy v Maxheimer, 429 Mich 422, 439; 416 NW2d 299 (1987), this Court noted that the survival act, MCL 600.2921, provides: “All actions and claims survive death. Actions on claims for injuries which result in death shall not be prosecuted after the death of the injured person except pursuant to” the wrongful-death act. The Hardy Court explained:
We, therefore, believe that since 1846 the law in Michigan has evolved to the point where it may now be held that the right to recovery for wrongful death “survives by law.” Consequently, a wrongful death action will no longer be regarded as one created at the time of death, but as one that “survives by law. ” We believe this interpretation fosters the legislative purpose behind both our [MCL 600.5852] saving provision and the current wrongful death act, MCL 600.2922[.] [Id. at 440 (emphasis added).]
Because an underlying claim “survives by law” and must be prosecuted under the wrongful-death act, this Court has held that any statutory or common-law limitations on the underlying claim apply to a wrongful-death action. In Jenkins v Patel, 471 Mich 158; 684 NW2d 346 (2004), we held that the medical-malpractice cap on noneconomic damages applies in a wrongful-death action when the underlying claim is for medical malpractice. This Court explained:
Clearly, the wrongful death act is not the only act that is pertinent in a wrongful death action. “The mere fact that our legislative scheme requires that suits for tortious conduct resulting in death be filtered through the so-called ‘death act’, [MCL 600.2922], does not change the character of such actions except to expand the elements of damage available.” Hawkins [v Regional Med Laboratories, PC, 415 Mich 420, 436; 329 NW2d 729 (1982).] That is, a wrongful death action grounded in medical malpractice is a medical malpractice action in which the plaintiff is allowed to collect damages related to the death of the decedent. [Id. at 165-166.]
*90Although MCL 600.2922(6) sets forth the damages available in wrongful-death actions, we rejected the plaintiffs argument in Jenkins that the medical-malpractice noneconomic-damages cap does not apply to a wrongful-death action:
Plaintiff argues that [MCL 600.2922(6)] governs damages in wrongful death claims, in such a manner that other provisions are rendered inapplicable. However, this Court has held that other statutory and common-law limitations on the amount of damages apply to wrongful death actions. For instance, comparative negligence principles and the collateral source setoff rule, MCL 600.6303(1), apply to wrongful death actions. Solomon v Shuell, 435 Mich 104; 457 NW2d 669 (1990); Rogers v Detroit, 457 Mich 125; 579 NW2d 840 (1998), overruled on other grounds by Robinson v Detroit, 462 Mich 439; 613 NW2d 307 (2000). [Id. at 171.]
Indeed, this Court has long held that a statutory or common-law limitation on the underlying claim applies to a wrongful-death action. In Maiuri v Sinacola Constr Co, 382 Mich 391; 170 NW2d 27 (1969), the plaintiffs’ son was killed in the course of his employment. The plaintiffs filed a wrongful-death action against the employer. Quoting the language of MCL 600.2922(1), this Court explained: “As a condition to a successful action under the wrongful death act, it must be shown that the decedent, if death had not ensued, could have maintained an action and recovered damages for his injuries.” Id. at 395. This Court concluded:
Since the cause of action of a proper plaintiff under the wrongful death act is a derivative one in that the personal representative of the deceased stands in his shoes and is required to show that the deceased could have maintained the action if death had not ensued, and since, in this case, the decedent would have been barred from an action for injuries resulting in death because of the exclusive remedy *91provisions of the workmen’s compensation act, the trial court did not err in granting an accelerated judgment for the defendant. [Id. at 396.]
See also Mehegan v Boyne City, G & A R Co, 178 Mich 694; 141 NW 905 (1913) (holding that the decedent’s execution of a release of liability barred his widow’s recovery in a wrongful-death action).
The same reasoning applies in Kik. If Sharon had not died, the claims available under the motor-vehicle exception would have been limited to those for “bodily injury” and “property damage.” Because a loss of consortium is not a “bodily injury,” no such claim could have been pursued had her death not ensued. Thus, the limitation on damages in the motor-vehicle exception must apply in this wrongful-death action.
In reaching a contrary conclusion, the Court of Appeals in Kik I relied on Endykiewicz. But Endykiewicz reflects a repudiated understanding of the wrongful-death act. The Endykiewicz Court stated that a wrongful-death action “exists not as ‘a cause of action which survives’ the decedent, but as ‘a new action * * * which can be brought, not for the benefit of the estate, but solely for the benefit of the beneficiaries named in the statute.’ ” Endykiewicz, supra at 387 (citations omitted). In light of Hardy and Jenkins, however, it is now clear that the underlying claim survives by law and that the limitations in the underlying cause of action apply to the wrongful-death action. Because of this, we believe that Hardy silently overruled the analysis of the wrongful-death act in Endykiewicz. For this reason, we now explicitly hold that Endykiewicz is overruled to the extent that it is inconsistent with our decision.13
*92Accordingly, we hold that the wrongful-death act does not expand the waiver of immunity set forth in the motor-vehicle exception to include loss-of-consortium claims.
C. MCL 691.1407(2)(c) DOES NOT SHIELD GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYEES FROM LOSS-OF-CONSORTIUM CLAIMS
Finally, we agree with the Kik I panel that governmental employees are not immune from loss-of-consortium claims if the requirements of MCL 691.1407(2)(c) are met. Because he is a governmental employee, Sbraccia’s liability is premised not on the motor-vehicle exception, but on MCL 691.1407(2)(c). That provision states that a governmental employee is immune from tort liability if his “conduct does not amount to gross negligence that is the proximate cause of the injury or damage.” Unlike the motor-vehicle exception for governmental agencies, the gross-negligence exception for employees does not limit the waiver of immunity to cases of bodily injury or property damage.
Defendants argue that an employee cannot be subject to liability if the governmental agency itself is immune. But this argument has no basis in the text of the GTLA. The Legislature has prescribed different standards for determining whether immunity is afforded to governmental agencies and employees. It therefore follows that the extent of their respective immunities may not always be coextensive. As the Kik I panel explained:
*93The Legislature chose to use different standards to determine the immunity of the governmental entities and the governmental employee. Such a choice may have the effect in certain cases that the employee may not be immune when the governmental employer is immune. The Legislature could have avoided such a situation by providing in MCL 691.1407(2) that an individual employee is immune whenever the governmental entity is immune, but it did not. Whether it makes sense to hold the individual employee liable in a situation in which the governmental entity itself is immune is a question to be addressed by the Legislature, not this Court. The Legislature presumably had a reason to treat governmental employees and governmental entities differently, and it would be presumptuous of us to void that legislative determination. [Kik I, supra at 697.]
The Kik I panel’s analysis of this issue is sound. Because MCL 691.1407(2)(c) does not limit its waiver of immunity to bodily injury and property damage, we reject defendants’ argument on this issue.14
IV CONCLUSION
For these reasons, we hold that loss of consortium is not a bodily injury for which governmental immunity is waived under the motor-vehicle exception. Moreover, the wrongful-death act does not authorize a loss-of-consortium claim when a plaintiff would not have been entitled to seek damages for that claim under the motor-vehicle exception if a death had not ensued. Finally, MCL 691.1407(2) does not shield governmental employees from liability for loss-of-consortium damages.
*94Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals in Wesche, affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the Court of Appeals in Kik, and remand both cases to the trial courts for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Taylor, C. J., and Young and Markman, JJ., concurred with Corrigan, J.The Court of Appeals held that defendant’s Gradall is a motor vehicle for the purposes of MCL 691.1405. Defendant challenged this aspect of the Court of Appeals decision in a separate application for leave to appeal, which we denied. 477 Mich 1030 (2007). Thus, this issue is no longer before us.
Specifically, Beverly alleged that she had “been damaged by being denied the normal marital companionship and services from the date of *81Daniel’s physical injuries up to the present, with their [sic] being a reasonable likelihood/probability that some element of same will be permanent.”
Wesche v Mecosta Co Rd Comm, 267 Mich App 274; 705 NW2d 136 (2005).
478 Mich 860 (2007).
The original Court of Appeals panel noted that the complaint was not entirely clear regarding whether Sharon was stillborn or born alive and thereafter died. Like the original Court of Appeals panel, we will assume for purposes of our analysis that Sharon was born alive, but our opinion should not be read as resolving that issue if a dispute on the subject arises below. See Kik v Sbraccia, 268 Mich App 690, 693 n 2; 708 NW2d 766 (2005) (Kik I), vacated in part 268 Mich App 801 (2005).
Kik I, supra at 711-712.
The three-judge panel in Kik I was bound to follow Wesche because it was a prior published decision of the Court of Appeals issued on or after November 1, 1990, that had not been reversed or modified by this Court or by a special panel of the Court of Appeals. MCR 7.215(J)(1).
Kik v Sbraccia, 272 Mich App 388; 726 NW2d 450 (2006) (Kik II).
478 Mich 861 (2007).
The six statutory exceptions are: the highway exception, MCL 691.1402; the motor-vehicle exception, MCL 691.1405; the public-building exception, MCL 691.1406; the proprietary-function exception, MCL 691.1413; the governmental-hospital exception, MCL 691.1407(4); and the sewage-disposal-system-event exception, MCL 691.1417(2) and (3).
Justice Kelly asserts that our application of the statutory text will lead to absurd results, but we respectfully disagree, particularly in light of the independent nature of a loss-of-consortium claim. We simply are not convinced that the Legislature’s decision to waive immunity only from bodily-injury and property-damage claims, but not for independent loss-of-consortium claims, is absurd.
Justice Weaver concludes that the motor-vehicle exception to governmental immunity, MCL 691.1405, “does not expressly abrogate the right to claim damages for loss of consortium under Michigan’s common law....” Post at 96. However, she disregards MCL 691.1407(1), which states: “Except as otherwise provided in this act, a governmental agency is immune from tort liability if the governmental agency is engaged in the exercise or discharge of a governmental function.” Because governmental agencies are immune from tort liability unless one of the statutory exceptions applies, and because the motor-vehicle exception applies only to liability for “bodily injury and property damage,” governmental agencies are not liable for loss of consortium. Justice Weaver’s dissent entirely misapprehends the nature of the burden on a party seeking to avoid governmental immunity.
Our decision to overrule Endykiewicz is warranted under the doctrine of stare decisis, as set forth in Robinson, supra at 463-464. Endykiewicz was incorrectly decided because it erroneously treated a *92wrongful-death claim as a “new” cause of action rather than a continuation of the decedent’s underlying claim. Endykiewicz, supra at 387. Moreover, overruling Endykiewicz will not lead to practical real-world dislocations. On the contrary, adhering to a decision that contravenes well-settled principles of our jurisprudence would undermine the interest in a stable and predictable body of law, as demonstrated by the Kik I panel’s error in relying on Endykiewicz.
We do not address whether Sbraccia is entitled to summary disposition on other grounds, é.g., that plaintiffs have failed to establish that Sbraccia acted with gross negligence as defined in the applicable version of MCL 691.1407(2)(c) or that his gross negligence was “the proximate cause” of the injuries or death under the standard set forth in Robinson. Those issues are not before us.